Neocon ruins his life with Bush devotion

[Ender]

Seems like you're leaping from death-to-particular-people with whom I disagree, to death-to-anyone-with-whom-I-disagree. And my feeling regarding those particular people, derives from the particular odiousness and particular consequences of those beliefs. Once again, it's the particulars, not the mere fact that there is a disagreement.

That it is particular rather than specific changes nothing, the line of reasoning here remains the same. The disagree with you on a particular topic, therefore they deserve death.

You think he deserves death, not for any actions he has undertaken, but because he agrees with the actions others have done. Stop and think about the thought process you are applying there for a minute.

Plan? What plan? I didn't outline a plan.

It was a turn of phrase. Also substitute "goal", "hope", "wish", etc with appropriate grammar modifications where needed.

I know that you sometimes enjoy picking pointless arguments for the sake of picking pointless arguments, and I'm not going to play, so you may count this as a win and move along, if that pleases you. I'm not invested in this to the degree of wanting to waste more time circling with you, on it.

Right, "I can't defend my advocacy of punishing what I deem thought crimes, so I'm taking my ball and going home." Run along child, hopefully you will grow up before you spout this nonsense in a more serious medium and it has consequence for you.

[Kanastrous]

This particular individual went beyond thought to open advocacy and devoted efforts to affect policy. And yes, I do believe that under certain conditions, advocacy for something sufficiently stupid and odious merits consequences.

[Ender]

This particular individual went beyond thought to open advocacy and devoted efforts to affect policy. And yes, I do believe that under certain conditions, advocacy for something sufficiently stupid and odious merits consequences.

You really don't get this, do you? He advocated something you do not agree with. This is a protected civil liberty, probably our most important one. It is in no way shape or form a crime, much less one that deserves capital punishment. Except to you. In your little internet tough guy mind, those who disagree with you deserve death, because through he grace of being you, you have the ultimate moral authority to decide who lives and dies based solely off their opinions on subjects.

You are an idiot. You are right now advocating something infinitely worse than what he does. Shut up, stop posting, and think about what you are actually arguing for instead of riling up a false sense of righteous indignation.

[Fire Fly]

What does Jon Alvarez's politics have to do with the military opening up recruitment? If you had a PETA-Code Pink-AFL sympathizer who was willing to serve and follow orders, I doubt the military would say no. Is the military suddenly guilty by association now? The guy has some extremist views but that isn't even what the point of the article is talking about nor should his views be a litmus test for his consideration, provided he can work and cooperate with others. For all we know, joining the military might even moderate his views.

And here I am thinking this article would be about ironic justice swinging around to kick a free market worshiper in the ass.

[Kanastrous]

This particular individual went beyond thought to open advocacy and devoted efforts to affect policy. And yes, I do believe that under certain conditions, advocacy for something sufficiently stupid and odious merits consequences.

You really don't get this, do you? He advocated something you do not agree with. This is a protected civil liberty,

Agreed.

probably our most important one.

Also agreed.

It is in no way shape or form a crime, much less one that deserves capital punishment. Except to you.

I never proposed that he should be subjected to capital punishment. I never even suggested that he ought to be charged with a crime, since I agree with you that - so far as I know - he hasn't committed any violations of criminal statute.

In your little internet tough guy mind, those who disagree with you deserve death, because through he grace of being you, you have the ultimate moral authority to decide who lives and dies based solely off their opinions on subjects.

This is so far removed from anything that I have posted or expressed, that it doesn't even make sense to offer a response. Whoever has posted that, go have the argument, with them.

Shut up, stop posting, and think about what you are actually arguing for instead of riling up a false sense of righteous indignation.

I think that if you are looking for a false sense of righteous indignation, it's as close as your nearest mirror.

[Ender]

I never proposed that he should be subjected to capital punishment. I never even suggested that he ought to be charged with a crime, since I agree with you that - so far as I know - he hasn't committed any violations of criminal statute.

Way to focus on the turn of phrase rather that the point again. He is using his civil liberties to express his point of view. You think he deserves to die because of that point of view. This is in essence the same line of logic used to justify thought crimes (the phrase used to describe the actions of peopel being made to suffer for their opinions, hence my use of a criminal phrase to cover your expected punishment - death)

This is so far removed from anything that I have posted or expressed, that it doesn't even make sense to offer a response. Whoever has posted that, go have the argument, with them.

Nonsense and other comments. What on earth gives you the right to decide "ok, this person deserves to die because they think X is a good idea"? You are claiming to have that kind of moral authority here when you make those declarations.


How about you address the points I'm making instead of playing semantics here.

[Darth Wong]

Ender, we laugh at Darwin Award winners who die because of their own stupidity; why shouldn't we say that it would be poetic justice for a rabid warmongering idiot to die as a result of the very kind of activities he champions?

[KrauserKrauser]

But isn't the reason we laugh is because they are already dead. Is that the same as wishing the same people to die?

Is it the same for me to laugh at some that has died, compared to when actively wishing someone death?

[Sidewinder]

More like, death to assholes who agitate for a poorly-planned, ill-conceived, incompetently directed war, that's gotten a lot of people needlessly killed to no good end.

This particular individual went beyond thought to open advocacy and devoted efforts to affect policy. And yes, I do believe that under certain conditions, advocacy for something sufficiently stupid and odious merits consequences.

Alvarez was NOT a government leader who could order the US military to go to war. He was NOT a high-ranking military officer who could order an army to spread a war to another nation DESPITE lacking authorization from his commanding officer or commander-in-chief, i.e., a Douglas MacArthur who could order American expeditionary forces to invade and occupy another nation to prevent an enemy from using that nation as a base of operations. He wasn't even a particularly influential political activist, i.e., a William Randolph Hearst whose news media could affect the opinions of tens of millions of voters.

Do you see the hypocrisy in your statements? You're punishing a man for expressing support for a government decision that you disapprove, NOT a GOVERNMENT LEADER who can actually make that decision!

[Darth Wong]

But isn't the reason we laugh is because they are already dead. Is that the same as wishing the same people to die?

Is it the same for me to laugh at some that has died, compared to when actively wishing someone death?

Do you endorse the concept of poetic justice? Because the basis of poetic justice has nothing to do with the question of whether it's past-tense or present-tense.

[KrauserKrauser]

He did not have any part in actually starting the war, you are stretching the bounds of poetic justice to fit this guy in there.

Sure he supported the war, but he had no part in making the policy decisions that resulted in the war. At no point in the article did I see him reported as saying to invade Iraq before the invasion had taken place.

I would fit it more under tragedy as someone that supported the war, was then killed by it. It would be poetic justice for someone to have started a war to be killed by it.

[Darth Wong]

Do you see the hypocrisy in your statements? You're punishing a man for expressing support for a government decision that you disapprove, NOT a GOVERNMENT LEADER who can actually make that decision!

So saying that it would be poetic justice is somehow "punishing" someone now? I and countless others thought it was poetic justice when anti-seatbelt crusader Derek Kieper died in a car crash; does this mean we're all fascists who condone executing all who think differently than us?

[Kanastrous]

I never proposed that he should be subjected to capital punishment. I never even suggested that he ought to be charged with a crime, since I agree with you that - so far as I know - he hasn't committed any violations of criminal statute.

Way to focus on the turn of phrase rather that the point again. He is using his civil liberties to express his point of view. You think he deserves to die because of that point of view. This is in essence the same line of logic used to justify thought crimes (the phrase used to describe the actions of peopel being made to suffer for their opinions, hence my use of a criminal phrase to cover your expected punishment - death)

I did not suggest that he should be made to suffer. I suggested that - as an advocate for a particularly bad policy decision with particularly bad consequences, who has volunteered to assist in the implementation of said bad policies and furtherance of bad consequences - it would be appropriate if he were to suffer the worst possible consequences, which so many others have suffered as a result of said policies and their consequences.

[Darth Wong]

He did not have any part in actually starting the war, you are stretching the bounds of poetic justice to fit this guy in there.

Sure he supported the war, but he had no part in making the policy decisions that resulted in the war. At no point in the article did I see him reported as saying to invade Iraq before the invasion had taken place.

I would fit it more under tragedy as someone that supported the war, was then killed by it. It would be poetic justice for someone to have started a war to be killed by it.

You realize poetic justice is based on dramatic irony, do you not? What you're talking about is actual justice, not poetic justice.

[Ender]

Ender, we laugh at Darwin Award winners who die because of their own stupidity; why shouldn't we say that it would be poetic justice for a rabid warmongering idiot to die as a result of the very kind of activities he champions?

I'm not a real big fan of poetic justice or its cousin schraudenfreud (yeah I can't spell it, you know what I mean). And I do see a difference between someone dieing for their actions and someone declaring that someone should die for disagreeing with them.

Even if I did lol at Darwin awards this wouldn't fit because unlike the guy who pees on the high voltage lines, this guy didn't start the war. It would be blow back from someone else's actions. Whether he supported them or not, he didn't commit them.

[Darth Wong]

See my post to KrauserKrauser. Both of you are confusing actual justice for crimes with poetic justice, which is an entirely different concept. The fact is that stupidity is not morally punishable with death either, but we laugh at that. And saying that the guy caused it doesn't change the fact that there is no moral justification for it. That's the nature of poetic justice and dramatic irony: it is dark humour.

[Ender]

I did not suggest that he should be made to suffer. I suggested that - as an advocate for a particularly bad policy decision with particularly bad consequences, who has volunteered to assist in the implementation of said bad policies and furtherance of bad consequences - it would be appropriate if he were to suffer the worst possible consequences, which so many others have suffered as a result of said policies and their consequences.

Again with the semantics. "Suffer" has multiple meanings, thanks for focusing on the one that let you dodge the point instead of the one that made sense in context. Nice of you to then hypocritically use it yourself.

Again, you have decided that someone you have the moral authority to decide "yeah, this guy needs to die because I don't agree with him". This is fallacy ridden, as I have pointed out again and again. They guy has done nothing that brought about the events that you are now claiming would be his comeuppance. He just cheer-leaded from the sidelines for those that did. But apparently that is enough to forfeit his life in your world.

[KrauserKrauser]

So basically you're saying it's just a desire for a quick laugh at this guy dying?

I don't see what wishing this guy's death and claiming "OMG NO I MEAN'T FOR GREAT JUSTI... errr POETIC JUSTICE!!!" somehow justifies the wishing for death.

So Kanastrous is right in wanting a cheap laugh from this guy dying because he supported an opinion that Kana disagreed with?

I might laugh at Darwin Award winners but that does not mean that I would gladly not have any more winners so less people had to die.

[Darth Wong]

Well, aren't you just high and mighty then?

Frankly, if you laugh at Darwin Award winners then your objections here are nothing more than grandstanding bullshit. You're just desperately trying to draw some great distinction where none exists. You can't even explain why any of these differences make any ethical difference, so you just keep repeating them and then repeating your sense of outrage that we don't agree.

People laugh at things they find funny, not tragic. You can keep pretending otherwise in order to prop up your false moral outrage that we don't meet this exalted standard of yours, but the fact is that you find those things funny because you find poetic justice funny. Even when it involves death. Not my fault you're too dishonest to admit it.

[Darth Wong]

The level of rampant dishonesty here is breathtaking. Who hasn't seen some asshole cut him off on the highway and thought "I'd love to see that prick get flattened by a semi"? Oh of course, NOBODY here would ever think such thoughts, right? People enter this thread and suddenly rediscover a deep and abiding moral faith in the immense value of human life, no matter who it is!

[Ender]

The level of rampant dishonesty here is breathtaking. Who hasn't seen some asshole cut him off on the highway and thought "I'd love to see that prick get flattened by a semi"? Oh of course, NOBODY here would ever think such thoughts, right? People enter this thread and suddenly rediscover a deep and abiding moral faith in the immense value of human life, no matter who it is!

The difference being, in your case the guy just did something that would bring it about - driving in an unsafe manner. This guy? All he did was cheerlead from the sidelines. Frankly I see this as no different from the people screaming that all soldiers deserve to die because they volunteered. Yet we would dismiss them as loons here. So why is it funny in this case?

[General Zod]

The difference being, in your case the guy just did something that would bring it about - driving in an unsafe manner. This guy? All he did was cheerlead from the sidelines. Frankly I see this as no different from the people screaming that all soldiers deserve to die because they volunteered. Yet we would dismiss them as loons here. So why is it funny in this case?

I think you're not quite grasping the concept of poetic justice here. It doesn't matter if they're a principle cause or just "cheerleading from the sidelines", what matters is they get seriously reamed by a self destructive cause they chose to support.

[Mayabird]

Actually Kieper was a passenger in the car. IIRC it was an SUV that flipped. The other people who were wearing their seat-belts, did live, though. But yeah, he wasn't driving unsafely, just being stupid.

[KrauserKrauser]

So let's say that I'm a Japanese Patriot in WW2 time period. I fully believe in the Japanese cause and have demonstrated in peaceful protests in support of the war.

I then get up the gumption to fight in the war. If I am then killed in the war is it poetic justice or dramatic tragedy?

I was a useful idiot for the Imperial Japanese leadership but had no part in the actual planning or execution or any of the decisions to instigate the war that got me killed, yet I supported it once it was started.

Do you, Darth Wong, understand the difference between dramatic tragedy and poetic justice?

[Beowulf]

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, dumbass.

Are you talking about me?

Yup, I'm talking directly to you. You appear to be of the opinion that we should punish words instead of deeds, and people who have certain views, but do not act upon them should be banned from certain jobs.

I'll also note that many of the same people crowing about poetic justice would be calling this guy a chickenhawk if he hadn't enlisted.